Re: [gmx-users] Determining the cut offs more than half of the box

On 11/19/17 3:17 AM, Iman Ahmadabadi wrote: Dear Mr.Mark Abraham, Thank you for your help. Because of the accuracy of the results, I should use a reasonable cut offs for the interactions around 2.0 nm. The cut offs less than 1.0 nm are too small for my project because of the importance of long

Re: [gmx-users] Determining the cut offs more than half of the box

Dear Mr.Mark Abraham, Thank you for your help. Because of the accuracy of the results, I should use a reasonable cut offs for the interactions around 2.0 nm. The cut offs less than 1.0 nm are too small for my project because of the importance of long range interactions. The box size is an obstacle

Re: [gmx-users] Determining the cut offs more than half of the box

Dear Mr.Mark Abraham, Thank you for your help. Because of the accuracy of the results, I should use a reasonable cut offs for the interactions around 2.0 nm. The cut offs less than 1.0 nm are too small for my project because of the importance of long range interactions. The box size is an obstacle

Re: [gmx-users] Determining the cut offs more than half of the box

Hi, I don't understand what you think you want long cutoffs for. They are baked into the force field and you should not change those without reason to believe it already works. Mark On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:08 Iman Ahmadabadi wrote: > Dear Gromacs Users, > > I need to determine the 2.0 nm for VD

[gmx-users] Determining the cut offs more than half of the box

Dear Gromacs Users, I need to determine the 2.0 nm for VDW and Coulombic cut offs for my box that its height along z direction is too small (for example 2.0 nm) but the error will arise for me and I couldn't use the cut off more than 1.0 nm because of the box size. What should I do in this regard